The best one first and the author is talking in the past tense here...

Computing wrote: It (Linux) also lacked security that Micorsoft could offer

Computing wrote:Over the past couple of years, it (Linux) has matured as an OS and works well on smaller networks.

Computing wrote: But the true test for networked Linux will come when it is used as the operating system for high-end, mission-critical applications. Only then will it get the approval it needs to go head to head with Microsoft at the high end.

Beh, ignore it. Those articles are written to an exact formula -- you could've replaced Linux with Netware or OS/2 going back a decade or so. It's a soothing comfort blanket for IT bigwigs who've splashed out £millions on Microsoft kit, and are now scared they've made the wrong choice.

"But the true test for networked Linux will come when it is used as the operating system for high-end, mission-critical applications."

Will come?! Tell that to Amazon, Google and co. And if we're talking really 'mission-critical', then you don't run nuclear power stations on Linux or Windows. QNX all the way

I am not suprised at the lack of knowledge and research put into this artical pg 45 27/10/05. Obviously a MS hugger needing comfort from the rise of Linux.
What exactly does the author mean by "mission-critical"? Nuclear systems control, high capacity search engine, order processing, global webmail...
Well lets say the first 3 the above because each enterprise will view their system as mission critical.

havent they been operating for nearly 2 years past their original intended 90 Day mission ?the rovers were launched June 10, &July 7 2003.. I can hardly see sending a device that far away with an OS that isn't stable.. not to mention that way they were able to fix the rovers remotely when there were troubles at the strat..

I think the NASA scientists considerd that mission critical.. after all it's only a couple million dollars to send a ship to Mars..